Evans v Young [2000] ScotCS 180 (28 June 2000)

Evans v Young [2000] ScotCS 180 (28 June 2000)

The pursuers failed to aver facts sufficient to establish that, as a matter of contractual obligation, the payment was required to be made at their Glasgow office and only at that place. The circumstances relied on, including the location of work and accounting arrangements, were not known to or agreed by the defender and did not confer an entitlement on the pursuers to insist on payment at Glasgow. Therefore, the Scottish court lacked jurisdiction under Article 5(1).

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 180
Parties
Pursuer: Montagu Evans; Defender: Neil Young
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil (contractual Claim) / Jurisdictional Challenge (debate on Relevancy)
Outcome
Action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Place of Performance, Contractual Obligations, Brussels Convention, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Civil Procedure Contract Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Place of Performance Contractual Obligations Brussels Convention Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montagu Evans

Pursuer

Neil Young

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (contractual Claim) / Jurisdictional Challenge (debate on Relevancy)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish Court of Session has jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention (as enacted in Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982) to adjudicate on a contractual claim for payment where the pursuer has multiple places of business.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers have averred facts sufficient to establish that Glasgow was the sole place of performance of the payment obligation.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to aver facts sufficient to establish that, as a matter of contractual obligation, the payment was required to be made at their Glasgow office and only at that place. The circumstances relied on, including the location of work and accounting arrangements, were not known to or agreed by the defender and did not confer an entitlement on the pursuers to insist on payment at Glasgow. Therefore, the Scottish court lacked jurisdiction under Article 5(1).

Court Disposition

Action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Sustain the defender's first and second pleas-in-law.
  • Dismiss the action.